[1.05b1] Model design arbitrary rolls (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Shadow Empire >> Suggestions and Feedback


Malevolence -> [1.05b1] Model design arbitrary rolls (9/3/2020 10:27:22 PM)

Per the image, the rolls made for model design appear arbitrary and unconvincing. The designs do not develop naturally with experience over time.


Device is Windows 10 Pro 64bit, version 2004 (v19041.421), Intel i7-1065G7 1.30Ghz, 16GB RAM. It is a Surface Pro 7, connected to 2560x1600 display monitor via USB-C. Intel Iris Plus integrated graphics.

For reference, Game Build v 1.05-beta1; Scenario Build 1.05-beta1; Last Game Build used 1.05-beta1; Scenario Version Number #53.

Clux -> RE: [1.05b1] Model design arbitrary rolls (9/3/2020 11:57:04 PM)

Thats because you're making new models instead of improving the existing ones, and even then, you need to use them (and therefore increasing the field testing %) so the next model its better (you have to use the old model as base, otherwise it would be like if you were making a brand new design)

Malevolence -> RE: [1.05b1] Model design arbitrary rolls (9/4/2020 2:05:47 AM)



Thats because you're making new models instead of improving the existing ones, and even then, you need to use them (and therefore increasing the field testing %) so the next model its better (you have to use the old model as base, otherwise it would be like if you were making a brand new design)


No player should be forced to field a model that is worse than previous under any circumstances.

Also, as other models increase, such issues over time become more ridiculous given arbitrary rolls.

Individual soldiers can quickly develop more firepower and protection than the armored vehicles because the system is completely ruined by a too broad random number distribution.

HansLemurson -> RE: [1.05b1] Model design arbitrary rolls (9/4/2020 5:59:00 AM)

...You do understand that the M-8A4 Dragoon is a totally different and unrelated model to the M-8A3 Dragoon III, right?
Within one lineage of models you will only ever see the stats go up.

Is your complaint that brand-new vehicle models don't get the design experience from other lineages?

TheSquid -> RE: [1.05b1] Model design arbitrary rolls (10/17/2020 5:56:49 AM)

While in general I think it does actually make sense in certain circumstances for design quality on a single component to go backwards, this should always be due to some logical reason, and this reason should affect probabilities, e.g.:

- lack of knowledge of underlying science (IMO should be related to how many designs currently use this technology, not just whether it's been researched and/or level of tech (I believe currently, all that's taken into account in this regard is whether we have researched a specific binary tech, and in some cases the level of advancement for non-linear techs).

- lack of experience with similar components for that model (e.g. if we've previously fielded a bunch of tanks with equivalent-spec engines, then this engine should always be an improvement).

- as above, but for similar components on other model types (e.g. first time we're using a double diesel for a heavy tank, but we already field it in medium tanks so we should know what we're doing).

- for the overall model design %, even if designing a new model, previous models of that type should contribute somehow; however it sort of makes sense for this to actually be worse overall, provided this is due to factors such as one of the above (e.g. first time attempting to build a weapon of a certain calibre; first time attempting to use a specific research (i.e. it's one thing to have researched the principles of Gauss weapons (for example), quite another to use them in a tank where previously we'd only used more traditional weaponry); we have a requirement to build a certain model with certain mandatory features, resulting in a compromise on lesser features*.

*Potential tangential addendum: Not wanting to derail the gist of this thread, so this is somewhat tangential (but I'm not sure it needs/deserves a separate thread either, and if implemented it would definitely contribute to resolving the OP's issue): it would be cool if:

- weight wasn't just a "set" weight, but was a weight range (or alternatively, the weight is the "base" weight which could be adjusted based on design %, similar to how firepower and armour works?)

- we could choose to specify which aspects of the design are more important. So in addition to specifying the type of engine/armour thickness/weapon, we could specify we want to focus on "fuel economy", or "movement speed" (or even better: engine power and/or overall weight), survivability (HP), attack capability (even better if this were against a specific target, e.g. "focus on anti-inf").

If the above were done, then it would be possible to, for example, order your designers to come up with a tank that while it uses the exact same component "types" as a number of previous models, and uses the same technology, we'd like to specifically build a tank for the anti-tank role, but it must have a survivability at least equal to previous models, and we'd also like it to most definitely be faster than the previous version since we'd like to have our tanks keep up with our motorised infantry for once. At the end they might end up with a tank that's marginally better at AT than the previous model, has around the same (or marginally better) survivability, but our engineers have done well with the engine and it's much improved, so much faster tank at same weight/engine, with the compromise being that it uses fuel at an insane rate now, and out anti-inf capability is down a fair bit (e.g. maybe to save weight where they could, they removed all mounted MGs or something? I know technically we don't specify MGs on tanks (though IMO we probably should as this affects anti-inf a fair bit I would have thought?)). Also, while technically it's armour isn't any worse, perhaps its survivability against infantry is actually worse somehow due to other weight-saving considerations? Or perhaps the ammo consumption is now off the charts because they came up with a "new" version of an existing model/calibre of weapon with improved AT capability without weighing any extra (e.g. maybe it can fire slightly faster now and that's the only difference?).

TheSquid -> RE: [1.05b1] Model design arbitrary rolls (10/17/2020 6:16:46 AM)

One thing that could potentially improve this without significantly changing the mechanics or vastly increasing complexity: it would be cool if, instead of just being notified that a design "is finished", they instead "submit it to you for approval".

So if you get a report saying "here's Ultra Tank Mk II - a totally new model that's not based on the Ultra Mk I at all, though it has identical technology and design constraints/decisions (i.e. weapon type, armour thickness etc", then you read further and it turns out it's actually significantly worse than the Mk I, you should have some options:

- Accept the inferior design anyway (personally, I would consider this to be a "project cancelled" thing, since I'm never going to field this piece of crap)

- Tell them to keep working on it until they manage to come up with something that is at least not worse than the old model (or possibly have options on time periods that they can use to improve, with possible options on further actions later if things still don't work out - possibly even ability to spend some PP on additional "measures" to deal with this (of course the option to use the failure as an excuse to get rid of a troublesome department head is already provided by the overall game mechanics, but it would be great to be able to have something like this affect the success of those other measures, e.g. if someone has recently screwed up a project it should be possible to fire them with much less consequences).

- As above, except with the ability to choose a "focus area" to improve (this option should come with the risk that other aspects of the design may actually get worse)

Also, while I can accept a "new" design being inferior in "overall design" to an already-existing model (even containing the exact same components), I would seriously like the option to "take measure" against any design bureau that manages come out with a model based on tech we've used many times over, and somehow made it worse. E.g. if we've already got a bunch of models with double-diesel engines, if this new model has now somehow got a worse engine... well I believe that that level of incompetence takes talent, which I would put down to espionage, so I'd be wanting to do a bit of purging after this.

The above I believe would tie in well with the game's approach to personnel management. Sure taking measures against the head of that department is of course already possible, I believe it would enhance immersion if we were presented with some options at the end of any R&D/design activities (which would be different to the measures we have via cards, I'm thinking these would be more in line with other events, e.g. where you have the option of reprimanding the head of department, giving him a public dressing down, or a personal one-on-one "chat", or something...).

Page: [1]

Valid CSS!

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI